Jury Teaches Trump 83.3 Million Lessons

In the first E. Jean Carroll trial, Donald Trump did not bother to show up, and he got popped for $5 million. In the second E. Jean Carroll trial, by contrast, Trump was omnipresent. And, as a consequence, he got a very different result. Not different in the way he wanted, however, as this time he got popped for nearly 20 times as much: $18.3 million in compensatory damages and $65 million in punitive damages, for a total of $83.3 million in damages.

Politically, perhaps Trump achieved what he wanted in this trial, in that his performative shenanigans certainly communicated to the base that he is too big and strong to be worried about silly things like laws, judges and sexual assault victims. On the other hand, he already has the votes of people who are impressed by this sort of behavior. What he was really gunning for was their money. And there is no way on God's green Earth that he's ever going to raise $83.3 million off of this.

Legally, meanwhile, the Trump defense was the biggest train wreck since, well, Rudy Giuliani's defamation suit. Let us recall that the central goal of Carroll's lawyers was to demonstrate to the jury that Trump is the kind of man who would knowingly say things that he knew to be untrue, and that were intended to do harm to another person's reputation. And whatever the central goal of Trump's lawyers was, the main effect of their defense, and in particular their client's behavior, was to show the jury that Carroll's lawyers were right on the mark with their argument. Put more simply, if the opposition argues that you're a jerk, and then you get up on the stand and act like a jerk, the jury is likely to ponder the matter and conclude that... you're a jerk. In this case, the jury needed only 3 hours to both reach its conclusion and to decide exactly how much money was called for.

How did the jury come up with a weird number like $83.3 million and so fast? If we had to guess, we would imagine that first, the judge chose a foreperson. Then they went around the room asking each person: Should we award compensatory damages or not? After everyone agreed to award compensatory damages, they went around asking everyone to name a number. All the numbers were different. The foreperson then said: "None of us want to hang around here all night, so why don't we just average all the numbers?" Everyone nodded his or her head in agreement. Then the foreperson got out a smartphone and fired up a calculator app. Another round with numbers and out came an average. Then they did it again with punitive damages, this time with an agreement to round it to the nearest $5 million. Again, this is just a guess, but we think it's a pretty good one.

Here is what Trump posted to "Truth" Social after the jury kicked him in the teeth. Read carefully, and see if you notice what is missing:

Absolutely ridiculous! I fully disagree with both verdicts, and will be appealing this whole Biden Directed Witch Hunt focused on me and the Republican Party. Our Legal System is out of control, and being used as a Political Weapon. They have taken away all First Amendment Rights. THIS IS NOT AMERICA!

He followed with this, which is missing the same core element:

There is no longer Justice in America. Our Judicial System is Broken and Unfair!

He may be steaming, and he may still be attacking the legal system, and he may still be whining about how he's a victim of the deep state, but what he's not doing anymore is attacking E. Jean Carroll. It would seem that the strongman's muscles have withered, and maybe he's not more powerful than the law after all.

Trump has already promised to appeal, of course. However, he already put $5.5 million into an escrow account while appealing the first verdict, and he's going to have to put some portion of the $83.3 million (very possibly, that "portion" could be 100% of it, or more) into a second escrow account. He reportedly has that kind of liquidity, but both his cash and the assets he might use to secure a bond could soon be encumbered, when the NEXT multimillion dollar verdict comes down, very possibly this week.

This result also bodes ill for Trump's upcoming criminal trials. There will be much less tolerance for performative nonsense, while the consequences of a loss (i.e., loss of freedom) are rather more dire. And, thus far, he has failed to land a single "MAGA juror." It's entirely possible that one or more of the jurors in the two Carroll trials was a Trumper, but if so, they weren't willing to put their politics ahead of their job as a juror. When it comes to the Washington case, which is theoretically next up on the Trump docket, he's not likely to change his luck on this front.

Meanwhile, note that one of the most sordid and shameful storylines of Trump's career has come full circle. Remember the video that came to light in which Trump said:

Yeah, that's her. With the gold. I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know, I'm automatically attracted to beautiful—I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything... Grab 'em by the pu**y. You can do anything.

This reads like a script for exactly what he did to Carroll, excepting one thing. And that one thing is that yesterday, for the second time, a jury said: "No, actually, you CAN'T do anything." (Z)

Saturday Q&A

This one is pretty heavy on the Civil War.

And an additional hint as to this week's Friday headline theme: The key to the whole thing is a song. But that song is NOT "Rock Around the Clock." It's a song recorded more than 30 years after that Bill Haley and His Comets did their thing.

Current Events

K.E. in Newport, RI, asks: Can you explain what the Democratic National Committee was thinking when they chose to disqualify the results from the New Hampshire Democratic primary? Especially since 2020, Democrats have positioned themselves as the pro-democracy party. That means respecting election results, wanting every legal vote to be counted accurately and fairly, expanding voter access to ballots and polling locations, and enforcing the Voting Rights Act. These should not be controversial positions in 2024.

Doesn't it seem very hypocritical then for the DNC to completely invalidate their own party's voices in New Hampshire by refusing to award any delegates to the state? New Hampshire Democrats did not do anything wrong. They simply followed the statutes of their state and held the primary on the required date, as the Republicans did. As a moderate Democrat, I think it is ridiculous for the party to say they support democracy but punish the entire state party rank-and-file by not counting their votes as they will in other states.

(V) & (Z) answer: We're going to start by turning this around. Do you think it is fair that the people of New Hampshire should be able, entirely of their own volition, to permanently lay claim to a place right at the front of the primary election line, thus allowing a small, non-representative state to exercise grossly outsized influence over EVERY competitive presidential nominating contest? Because that is precisely what has happened.

If this situation is indeed unfair, or politically unwise—and the vast majority of Democrats think one or both of these things—then a change of some sort must be made. The people of New Hampshire are not going to make any changes unless their actions have some consequences, and that's precisely what the DNC imposed. And the "consequences" here are pretty minor; everyone still knows which candidate the state's Democrats favor in 2024, and that candidate is going to be the Democratic nominee. It is not like, but for the silencing of Granite State Democrats, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was going to be the Democratic standard-bearer.

---

S.B. in Los Angeles, CA, asks: I know the item about the New Hampshire primaries was pretty long already. I would be interested in your takes on Trump's speech and antics. Several of the networks were making a lot of hay about his remarks.

Also, as regards his trials, I completely agree with your observations in this segment that all his crazy, disruptive behavior will cause the "punitive damages meter" to keep rolling up and up. One thought I had, and I hope I'm wrong: Is there some legal way that all the funds from his political fundraising could be used to pay these damages? I'm also thinking his followers seem crazy enough that he could probably just open a general GoFundMe page and these lemmings would start contributing to that if asked. Is that legal?

(V) & (Z) answer: We always take a look at what Trump said after an event like this, but we very rarely think it's worth writing anything about his remarks.

There are only two kinds of Trump speeches. In the much less common type, which make up maybe 5% of the overall corpus, he's at least somewhat thoughtful, or magnanimous, or otherwise behaves like a normal, decent human being. His post-Iowa remarks were in this category. But the problem is that these occasions are anomalies. We've written too many items along the lines of "Maybe Trump has turned over a new leaf/is changing his approach/is finally listening to his advisors." But it never holds; he always goes back to being the person he fundamentally is. So, the anomalous speeches are not meaningful or revelatory in any way, and there's no longer anything useful for us to say about that.

The much more common type of Trump speech, of course, is the rant. He whines about how he's a victim, and he lashes out at the enemy du jour, and he reels off a bunch of lies, and he claims he's the greatest [X] since [Y], and so forth. The problem here is that everyone who follows politics, even casually, has heard this speech before, because he's given it thousands of times. There's also no longer anything useful for us to say about this sort of speech, either.

Consequently, the only time it's worth our time to take notice of what Trump says in a speech (or at a rally, or during a media hit) is when he reveals something new about his election strategy ("Did you hear Joe Biden is secretly a Chinese double agent?") or he reveals something new about his specific plans to undermine democracy ("Do we really NEED a Supreme Court? I'm not so sure...").

As to your latter questions, he can redirect some PAC/campaign funds to paying his attorneys, arguing that some of his court cases are an aspect of his political career. Using PAC/campaign funds to pay his judgments, by contrast, would be... a stretch. The two Carroll judgments are against Donald J. Trump, and not against Donald J. Trump for President 2024, Inc. Note also that even if he tried it, his PACs and his campaign don't have the funds to cover $83.3 million right now (much less whatever giant penalty Arthur Engoron is about to hand down).

It would likely be legal for Trump to set up a GoFundMe, as long as it was absolutely clear that the money was ONLY to pay his judgments. But while such a page might generate a fair number of prayers, it wouldn't generate a fraction of the money he needs. As a point of reference, the last time we looked at the fundraising project of Georgia fake elector Cathy Latham (on Oct. 23, 2023), she was at about $22,000 and 2,900 prayers. She is now at exactly $22,324 and 2,944 prayers. The last donation was 59 days ago. Trump would do better, but not $83 million better.

---

M.S. in Alexandria, VA, asks: Is "contempt of court" really a thing or just a trope sitcoms use to put characters in a holding cell set? I've tried to search for a reason why TFG's antics haven't resulted in a contempt charge (for 2024), but I've come up dry. Do you have any insight?

(V) & (Z) answer: It's definitely a real thing. The judges Trump has been before thus far have given him a long leash. Only they know for sure why they did it, but likely reasons are: (1) they wanted to bend over backward to make sure his rights were observed; (2) they did not want to give him fuel for his "victimhood" narrative and (3) they knew that if given a long leash, he was likely to hang himself.

Given the stakes in a criminal trial, and the much greater personal risks being assumed by jurors, we are inclined to guess that Trump will be granted far less "tolerance" going forward.

---

J.W. in Seattle, WA, asks: If the Supremes recognize total immunity for the president, clearly that means President Biden (*) has total immunity and could have a certain insurrectionist arrested, exiled, whatever. No due process needed, etc.

What I haven't quite untangled is: Have The Former Guy's lawyers not thought this through? Do they somehow think it would only apply when their guy is president? What's their angle? I've seen the occasional pundit mention this, but the discussion seems to go nowhere.

(* who is doing a terrific job)

(V) & (Z) answer: This came up in the appeals court hearing. One of the judges asked what would stop Joe Biden from ordering a member of SEAL Team Six to assassinate Trump. Trump's lawyers said that the correct response would be for Congress to impeach and convict him, after which he could be tried for murder.

We have absolutely no doubt that Trump's counsel understands that they are making an argument that is fundamentally unsustainable, because of its implications when taken to extremes. What they are hoping for is two things: (1) that the courts will not grant unlimited immunity, but that they will grant some version of immunity that covers most or all of the actions Trump is indicted for; (2) that, when this Hail Mary pass ultimately fails, the checks from Trump still clear.

---

D.R. in Phoenix, AZ, asks: Is it possible, and would there be sufficient upside, for President Biden to authorize and aggressively promote the sale of war bonds to assist Ukraine and Israel?

(V) & (Z) answer: Biden cannot do this; only Congress can authorize war bonds.

Would there by some value to Congress announcing such a program? Maybe, but it would basically be semi-misleading sleight of hand. If the legislature votes to give Ukraine $50 billion, then to pay for that, the Treasury will issue $50 billion in bonds, and will hold an auction to sell those bonds to the bidder willing to accept the lowest interest rate (this is always how bonds are funded). If they stamp "UKRAINE WAR BOND" on those, it might drive up interest a bit, and might attract additional people willing to buy, which might slightly reduce the rate of interest the government has to pay. But it would not fundamentally change the process by which bonds are issued and funded.

---

B.G. in Kalamazoo, MI, asks: If you're going to mention the times that Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) sounded like she was against failed coup attempts, wouldn't the fair thing be to also note the (prior) time she participated in one?

When you talk about someone being (initially) against Jan 6, the default assumption readers will have is that they don't like attempts to overturn elections. But, obviously, Elise's signing, the month before, onto the amicus brief supporting the Paxton suit belies that assumption—before she condemned January 6, she didn't just favor coup attempts, she participated in one. Which means the most likely interpretation of Stefanik's feelings are: "Coup attempts are fine, as long as they don't make me fear for my own physical safety."

You're unclear about the timeline in which Stefanik went from moderate to extreme, but your item could be read as "she was still moderate all the way through Jan 6," which would be a funny thing to say about someone who had already betrayed the country and tried to end democracy a month earlier.

And, as always, writing an entire feature about someone who tried to steal an election, without noting that she tried to steal the election, is an incredibly biased decision.

(V) & (Z) answer: We rarely run these complaints masquerading as questions, but readers do like to see examples of the kinds of questions/comments we get, so we're making a (rare) exception here.

To start, we can't even imagine what bias you think this reflects. Do you think we are in the bag for Elise Stefanik? That we are trying to help rehabilitate her image? That we are promoting her vice-presidential candidacy? We can't imagine that ANY reader of this site would think those things, particularly given that the item in question was overwhelmingly critical of Stefanik.

Second, did you know that Donald Trump has stiffed his business partners in the past? That Joe Biden sometimes misspeaks? That Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is sometimes duplicitous? That, during the pandemic, Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) hypocritically flouted mask mandates and dined at the chichi restaurant The French Laundry? That Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) has said antisemitic things in the past? That Rep. Ilhan Omar (DFL-MN) has said antisemitic things in the past? Of course you know all of these things. And if, EVERY TIME we wrote about these people, we included these (and other well-known) details, our writing would get cumbersome very quickly. So, we only remind people of these things when they are directly relevant to the item in question.

In the case of the Stefanik piece, the point was that she used to be on the same page as Liz Cheney and now, driven by venal political opportunism, Stefanik has done a 180-degree turnaround. To illustrate that point, it is only necessary (and apropos to clear, economical writing) to mention one good example that speaks to the "new" Stefanik. And we chose the one that is more current and more relevant to the 2024 election, namely Stefanik's parroting of Trump's 1/6 rhetoric about the Jan. 6 criminals being "hostages."

---

J.K. in Silverdale, WA, asks: I generally refrain from commenting on other people's appearances, but I must confess, I react with some disbelief whenever Elise Stefanik is deemed "attractive" on this site. I certainly don't think that she is close to Trump's type.

A potential dark horse candidate that I think is much more Trump's type is Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC), and she also has swung Trumpy recently. Do you think she could be angling to be Trump's Veep, and what do you think of her prospects?

(V) & (Z) answer: We don't, in any way, claim to understand what is going on in Trump's head when he thinks about a particular woman. We do know he values attractiveness, as he understands it. And we also know that, on that dimension, Stefanik is not competing with the Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders, she's competing with the half-dozen or so other women who might plausibly be a Trump running mate.

Mace would be delighted to be Trump's running mate, and is undoubtedly making sure that's out there on the grapevine. That said, we don't see much that she offers that Stefanik does not. Stefanik is better known, has been in politics longer, and holds a more prominent position in the Republican Party. She also knows very well how to defer to Trump, which Trump wants from any running mate, and which he is particularly going to demand from a female running mate. Mace seems to be considerably more outspoken, and much more likely to do her own thing when the muse strikes. Remember, once the VP is sworn in, they can't be fired or forced out.

Politics

C.S. in Cincinnati, OH, asks: Members of my knitting group are firmly convinced that Joe Biden promised during the 2020 campaign that he would serve only one term. I have seen footage of him promising to be a bridge between chaos and sanity (paraphrasing here), but I don't remember any concrete pledge that he intended to be one and done. There is some feeling among the knitters that his running for reelection breaks a promise and is therefore disappointing, though not disqualifying, but I would like to know, if possible, if he really made this promise.

(V) & (Z) answer: During the 1980s, Americans were regularly told about the horrors of apartheid in general, and the hardships of Nelson Mandela's life in prison, in particular. From this, a very sizable number of Americans developed an understanding that Mandela died in prison in the 1980s; some Americans believe this to this very day. Of course, it's not remotely true—he got out of prison, helped bring down apartheid, won a Nobel Peace Prize, became leader of South Africa, and died at a ripe, old age in 2013.

The notion that Mandela died in prison is known as a false memory, and when false memories are formed across a broad swath of the populace (as opposed to just one or two people), it's called the Mandela Effect, so-named because of the example above.

Your friends' memories are a pretty good example of the Mandela Effect, albeit a case of the Mandela Effect that was somewhat encouraged by Biden himself. Back in 2020, there was much talk in the media that Biden could blunt the age issue by committing to serve one term. Some of Biden's aides, off the record, said that Biden might well consider making a one-term promise. Biden himself said the thing about being a "bridge president;" that was a carefully chosen phrase that allowed people who wanted a one-term promise to potentially conclude he was making one, but without ACTUALLY making such a promise.

For our part, incidentally, we never thought a one-term promise was a possibility, or a sensible option. Any president who does that gets to spend their entire (single) term as a lame duck. Our view was that even if Biden planned to serve one term, he should not let that slip until late 2023, which would maximize his non-lame-duck time while also allowing for a Democratic primary.

---

D.K. in Iowa City, IA, asks: Why is Joe Biden running in spite of his age? The reason matters for many people, is it egoism, the fear that Kamala would be the candidate and be very unpopular, the sense that there is no one in the party who would make a better candidate in spite of being younger? Does he think he is tremendously qualified because of his experience? Has anyone figured this out? If many people conclude that it is egoism, that will be damaging. It will be very sad if Biden's age is a significant factor in electing Trump.

(V) & (Z) answer: It is unlikely that there is any single answer to this question. On a personal level, he has achieved the pinnacle of his profession, a pinnacle that few have reached. It is not easy to throw that away before you have to.

At the same time, as a loyal party man, and a professional politician, Biden knows he can offer three things that no other Democrat can. First, he is an incumbent. Second, he has actually beaten Donald Trump. Third, he can keep the Democrats from enduring a potentially divisive primary (recall Hillary vs. Bernie). These are all important things and, again, there is no other Democrat in the land who can bestow them upon the Party.

We have written this before, and we will presumably write it again, but it is simply not the case that if Biden were to step aside, some candidate would emerge who would be impervious to right-wing attacks and who would promptly unify the Democratic Party. That person does not exist. Any Biden replacement would just trigger a different group of attack lines from the right, while triggering a different group of anxieties, and a different game of jockeying between factions, from the left.

---

J.W. in Los Angeles, CA, asks: The item "Current State of the Republican Party: Psycho" brings to mind something I've been pondering lately. What happens when Donald Trump is no longer on this plane of existence? There is no replacement (which is his full ego maniacal intent, though others think they can be him). Add to that the overwhelming belief in conspiracy theories in sectors of the party that will undoubtedly shroud his passing, and it seems there will be complete chaos. What are the possible outcomes, who sorts it out, and what is the blowback across the nation's politics?

(V) & (Z) answer: We have written many times that we think that Trump is sui generis, and that once he's no longer available to run for president, the Republicans are in a world of hurt. It's pretty clear that the GOP's pros have reached the same conclusion, that they can't win with a non-MAGA candidate, and they can't win with a MAGA candidate other than Trump. That is why people like Mitch McConnell are grudgingly falling in line behind the former president.

When the race to succeed him commences in earnest, it figures to be ugly. As Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) and others have demonstrated, they think the "key" is to out-Trump Trump. So, there is going to be a race to the far, far right among dozens of pretenders to the throne. The good news for Democrats is that this is likely to leave the GOP with a totally unelectable candidate. Does anyone seriously think the DeSantis/Greene 2028 would be a winner against Newsom/Whitmer 2028 or Whitmer/Newsom 2028?

---

G.M. in Ponte Vedra, FL, asks: Are the Republicans overplaying their hand on immigration? As you pointed out, Donald Trump and his supporters have openly shown that they want to prevent any congressional action on the border to keep the issue alive for political gain. Is there an opening here for Joe Biden to take an issue he's vulnerable on and turn it to his advantage? For example, saying in his State of the Union address: "Look, I'm willing to sign legislation to fix immigration and fund the program, but Trump and the Republicans are blocking it."

Yesterday's news also reported that Gov. Greg Abbott (R-TX) has decided to defy the federal government and the Supreme Court (not to mention violate the Constitution) by preventing the feds from removing razor wire he installed on the border. It seems this is an opportunity for Biden to counter his image as indecisive and/or weak by federalizing the Texas National Guard (à la President Eisenhower integrating Arkansas schools in 1957) and ordering them to assist in removing the wire. What do you think?

(V) & (Z) answer: We think the Republicans are indeed overplaying their hand. It's one thing to commit sabotage behind the scenes. It's another thing to do it out in the open. With only a few exceptions, Republicans have no interest in solving this problem.

We do think that this presents opportunities for Biden, and... he thinks so too. Yesterday, he announced that if Congress gives him authority to close the border while things get straightened out, he will use it. That means he is now in a position to say that if voters are unhappy about the border, it's not him that's keeping it open. You can bet this subject will come up in the SOTU.

As to your final question, there's a rather significant problem. If Abbott were using the Texas National Guard to patrol the border, Biden could indeed nationalize them. And if any of them defied him, they would be breaking the law and could (and would) be court martialed. However, Abbott is not using the Texas National Guard, he is using the Texas State Guard. By law, those guardsmen and women answer to the governor of Texas, not the president. If Biden tried to nationalize them, he'd be on very shaky ground, and in the likely event they defied him, he would have limited options. It would be very bad PR for him.

---

J.L.J. in San Francisco, CA, asks: Why in the world do any of these Republicans want to be VP for Donald Trump? Did they not see the gallows erected for his first Vice President? As Mike Pence showed, as Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) has shown, as Senator Tim Scott (R-SC) has shown, they have to adopt every crackpot noise that escapes Trump's face as their very own firmly held belief, while being totally submissive all the time, willing and able to regularly debase themselves at a moment's notice. One deviation, however, and it's the gallows.

(V) & (Z) answer: We never cease to be amazed at all the wannabe Trump flunkies who see, along with all the rest of us, that he eventually turns on EVERYONE, and yet who think that they will be the ones who have a different outcome.

Also, as a purely mathematical matter, Republican VPs don't have a great record of succeeding to the presidency. There have been 22 of them; only two became president after serving a Republican who reached the end of his term (Richard Nixon, George H.W. Bush), another trio did it by succeeding a Republican who died in office (Chester Arthur, Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge; Andrew Johnson succeeded Republican Abraham Lincoln, but was not himself a Republican), and one did it by succeeding a president who resigned (Gerald Ford). That means that, based on past precedent, a potential Trump VP has a 9% chance of being elected to succeed him, a 13.7% chance of taking over from him upon his death, a 4.5% chance of succeeding him after his resignation, and an overall 27.2% chance of taking over the big chair. Doesn't seem worth selling one's soul, not to mention one's dignity, but what do we know?

---

J.E. in West Hollywood, CA, asks: I am at a loss as to why Steve Garvey would choose to run a hopeless campaign for Senate against two well-known and well-funded opponents when he could have waited and run for governor where he has a better chance of winning (after all, Californians have shown a tolerance for moderate Republicans as governor, especially if they are celebrities), would stand out among the no names currently running and would be able to accomplish something instead of being a rookie senator in a dysfunctional branch of the U.S. government. Can you think of a good reason?

(V) & (Z) answer: First of all, Garvey's chances of winning a gubernatorial race are no better or worse than his chances of winning a U.S. Senate race (both are very, very close to zero). Schwarzenegger first won in a wonky special election in which Gray Davis was recalled, and he won the second time because California always reelects governors to a second term.

And we suspect that Garvey is doing it because it gives him a chance to be a "star" again, in a manner of speaking. Plus, he's had financial issues, and anything that increases or reminds people of his fame means he can make more money from his business ventures, not to mention from signing baseballs at autograph shows.

It's also worth noting that if Garvey DOES think he's gubernatorial material, then a Senate run could serve as precursor to that by giving him campaign experience and rebuilding his name recognition.

---

G.H. in Branchport, NY, asks: Can you explain (again) why pollsters use registered voters early on and switch to likely voters closer to election?

(V) & (Z) answer: While all of our readers are thoroughly engaged in politics the whole year round, many people simply aren't paying attention to politics until around September. If a pollster asks a voter in March who he or she is going to vote for, the answer in many cases for the critical swing voters will be "I haven't thought about it much yet." The usual screens for determining likely voters have questions like: "Are you paying much attention to the election?" don't work in March when most people aren't paying attention. So trying to guess in March who will actually vote in November is a fool's errand. Hence using only registered voters makes the most sense. By September, when the campaigns are going full force, it makes more sense to try to guess who will actually vote.

If you would like to read a bit more, here's a commentary from Pew Research on this very question.

Civics

B.L. in Hudson, NY, asks: Why were Maine and Nebraska set up to allocate their electoral votes based on individual congressional districts, when all other states allocate them to the entire state? If an election year comes in which this causes a reversal of an outcome for president (unlikely, but not terribly so), will the resulting uproar be enough to cause either or both of these states to change their systems?

In your view, which way is more fair; the Maine/Nebraska way or the allocations of the other states?

(V) & (Z) answer: Let's start with the latter question: Allocating proportionally is undoubtedly more fair, as it gives a voice to more voters. That is why, at any given time, there are generally 1-3 states using some sort of proportional scheme. It's Maine and Nebraska right now, but in the past, California, Oklahoma, Alabama, Tennessee and others have done it.

The problem is that splitting EVs in this way dilutes the state's political power, since it makes the state a less juicy prize for presidential candidates. As a result, states invariably switch back to the winner-takes-all approach eventually.

---

D.T. in Columbus, OH, asks: My understanding is that one of the key differences between a "primary" and a "caucus" is that primaries are real elections, managed by the state's election official. Caucuses are essentially private events run by independent organizations (the Republican/Democratic parties of that state).

If this is accurate, then how much oversight does the state government have over caucuses? Do election laws even apply? Imagine someone were to organize a large-scale caucus-fraud operation. Let's say there was a vote-buying ring, or a coordinated effort to get a bunch of 17 year olds fake IDs to participate. Would any of this be an actual crime?

(V) & (Z) answer: There is relatively little state or federal oversight of caucuses. They must follow federal election law, so it's not legal, for example, to bar women or people of color from participating. But other than that, if a party wants to require an NRA card to participate, or if it says that votes may only be cast between 7:04 a.m. and 7:05 a.m., or if it says that votes are for sale to the highest bidder, that is all legal.

---

B.J.L. in Ann Arbor, MI, asks: I've signed up again to be a poll worker for the primary. In addition to Election Day, the city is asking those of us with experience to staff the roughly 10 days of early voting. Happy to do this. But looking at the fact that the Democrats have canceled their presidential primary, there is still some ambiguity of whether state and congressional maps are fixed now. The redistricting commission has weighed in with maps, but apparently some districts in Detroit are not drawn correctly and there may be a need to go back. Thinking back decades ago, fair redistricting seemed more important. It seems that now where we are, we have primary elections that will hardly matter and maybe into future years as well. Do you feel the same?

(V) & (Z) answer: We do not. It is arguably in gerrymandered districts that primaries are most important, since they are de facto the general election. Meanwhile, the presidential primaries may seem boring this year, but pretty much no matter what happens in November, the primaries are going to be jumping on both sides of the aisle in 2028.

---

D.S. in Layton, UT, asks: Is the impeachment process for cabinet members the same as the one for POTUS?

(V) & (Z) answer: Yes, with only one small exception. In presidential impeachments, the Chief Justice serves as presiding officer. In any other impeachments, the President of the Senate (i.e., the VP) serves as presiding officer.

---

K.B. In Manhattan, NY, asks: Primary season brings commentary on each state's politics, often focusing on how wonky the politics are compared to other states. So... which state is truly the "wonkiest"? Which state is least "wonky" ("normal")?

(V) & (Z) answer: We thought a fair bit about this, and we ended up with two states that are often mentioned together, although this was not by design.

The least wonky state is... Hawaii. It's very blue, and running for federal or statewide office as a Democrat there is about as big a slam dunk as it gets in politics. In the 65 years since statehood, Hawaii has only elected two Republican governors (versus seven Democrats), two Republican representatives (versus 21 Democrats) and one Republican senator (versus six Democrats). The only odd thing is that Hawaiians pretty much always turn against their governors, eventually.

The most wonky state, meanwhile, is... Alaska. It's got a small population, and elections there are subject to the state's considerable challenges in terms of climate and infrastructure. The state also has ranked-choice voting for many elections. Oh, and its political culture is more libertarian than it is aligned with the Republicans or Democrats. So, the state tends to produce a lot of surprise results, like having a Democratic representative but two Republican senators, or electing a senator as a write-in candidate, or electing a grossly underqualified nutter like Sarah Palin as governor.

History

D.R. in Charlotte, NC, asks: Donald Trump is likely to be a nominee for president for the third time. The only major party candidate who has done this previously was William Jennings Bryan (1896, 1900 and 1908), who lost every time. I am wondering if there could be a "OMG, he's running again!" effect where some voters are worn out with a candidate who just won't go away. Is there such an effect, and could it be happening this year?

(V) & (Z) answer: You have omitted several people who should be on your list. Franklin D. Roosevelt was a four-time nominee for president, while Thomas Jefferson, Grover Cleveland and Richard Nixon were three-time nominees. And excepting Bryan, who never won, all of these other men were victorious in their third presidential contest. It's a small sample size, scattered across very different historical eras, but this suggests to us that the "Not a third time!" effect does not exist.

---

S.R. in Ottawa, ON, Canada, asks: Trump's impending third Republican nomination has got me thinking about other three-time nominees. Obviously there's Grover Cleveland and Richard Nixon, but also William Jennings Bryan. Bryan was the Democratic nominee in 1896, 1900, and 1908. What happened in 1904 that he wasn't the nominee then too?

(V) & (Z) answer: The Democratic Party of his era had three major factions: the fiscal conservatives, the populists, and the urban laborers (whose votes were largely controlled by machines like Tammany Hall). In the three Bryan elections, the two latter groups were unified, and were able to get their candidate nominated. In 1904 they were not, and the fiscal conservatives, led by Grover Cleveland, managed to gain control of the party machinery and the nomination process.

---

J.D.Z. in St. Paul, MN, asks: In the article "Another Kind of Article We Can't Stand," you wrote "[Joe Biden has] been on three winning presidential tickets..."

This got me thinking: This is a pretty small club, right? Franklin Roosevelt, obviously, was also on three winning presidential tickets, and also Richard Nixon and George H.W. Bush. But... that's it. I know John Adams and Thomas Jefferson both served in the executive branch for three terms, but they weren't on three winning tickets, since that was prior to the 1804 adoption of the Twelfth Amendment. Did I miss anyone?

(V) & (Z) answer: You did not miss anyone. There were a handful of folks who might plausibly have pulled it off, but did not. For example, John C. Calhoun could have done it three times as a VP, if he did not resign during his second term. Theodore Roosevelt could have done it if he'd been William McKinley's original running mate, but he wasn't.

And, of course, there are some folks who would argue that Al Gore was also on three winning tickets.

---

M.A. in Knoxville, TN, asks: Assuming Nikki Haley does throw in the towel soon, making Donald Trump the presumptive nominee, has there ever been an election since primaries started where both candidates were known so early? I can't remember any in my lifetime, usually it took until spring at the earliest.

(V) & (Z) answer: Well, the first primaries were held in the 1910s. So, if you extend "the primary era" back to then, there are a few elections that qualify. It was known very early in 1948 that the election would be Harry S. Truman vs. Thomas E. Dewey. It was known very early in 1956 that the election would be a rematch of 1952: Dwight D. Eisenhower vs. Adlai Stevenson.

Of course, that's cheating. Primaries did not become the main vehicle for choosing nominees until the 1960s. And if we only extend "the primary era" back to that decade, then no, there's never been a contest that was over (or effectively over) this early.

---

F.S. in Cologne, Germany, asks: Could the American Civil War have been prevented if James Polk hadn't provoked the Mexican-American War?

(V) & (Z) answer: Almost certainly not. First, partisans on both sides had turned against the Missouri Compromise by the mid-1840s. Not all of them, but many. Second, the South had concluded, with good reason, that both politically and economically, slavery could only survive if it kept expanding to more states and territories. Even if there had never been a Mexican cession, Southern partisans had their eyes on (and made some overtures in the direction of) several Central American countries, as well as Cuba, as potential new U.S. slave states.

---

D.E. in Lancaster, PA, asks: I have a "What If" Civil War question. As you know, the Lost Cause folks like to portray themselves as the victims of the Civil War—it's the reason they refer to the Civil War as the "War of Northern Aggression." What if Lincoln had decided not to fight for the Union? Would the Confederacy have been content to exist besides the Union or would they have found some other excuse to invoke a belligerent response, like demanding their property that fled to be returned? My reading has always suggested that the South was eager for the "glory" of war while the Union was more reluctant (especially when it was framed as a war to obtain the freedom for the slaves). But if the Confederacy had managed to go their separate ways thanks to inaction from the Union States, do you think it would have become a failed state, or could the Confederacy have succeeded? It seems their lack of railroads and industry would have severely hampered their viability as a nation. In fact, I imagine in the multiverse, that there is one universe where the Governor of Maryland is putting barbed wire on the shores of the Potomac to keep the impoverished Southrons, carrying Fentanyl and child porn no less, from sneaking illegally into the USA!

(V) & (Z) answer: To start, the Confederacy would have been delighted to be allowed to go their own way. They knew full well that facing off against the industrial and military might of the Union was a tall order, and that victory would be very difficult, assuming that it was achieved at all. There is no way the Southerners would have provoked a war if they could have achieved independence without it.

As to an independent South, the leadership knew that allowing their industrial base to remain stagnant was an error, and steps were taken during the war to fix that. Undoubtedly, they would have continued to work on that problem in the 1870s and 1880s. However, trailing the north by nearly 100 years in terms of experience would have been a real problem. Another big problem would have been the steep drop in cotton prices, which would have happened with or without the Civil War, thanks to the development of cotton production in Egypt and other nations.

But almost certainly the biggest problem for an independent South is that the nation would have been founded on the understanding that if a state (or group of states) does not like an election result, or is upset about the state of the nation, they are free to leave and strike out on their own. It is a certainty that at some point, there would have been some sort of bitter dispute, and another secession. Maybe Texas leaves, or maybe all the western states do, or maybe the lower south splits from the upper, or maybe Virginia leaves and rejoins the U.S.

In short, "failed state" seems very plausible.

---

S.T. in Ocean Grove, NJ, asks: You noted the Biden/Harris Rally in Manassas and commented that the President didn't go there because he is a Civil War buff. As a Yankee, it took me a bit to realize that you were referring to the Battle(s) of Bull Run, not the Battle(s) of Manassas, as described in the Southern literature. I've also visited Shiloh, a.k.a. Pittsburg Landing, so this is not the only one. There are certainly battles like Gettysburg that are named the same in both the North and South.

Is there a reason why, and is it significant (i.e., did it tie into the Lost Cause mythology) that there were varying names to the same event and that they survive to this day?

(V) & (Z) answer: We will give you a few things on this subject that are generally true. First, the soldiers of the Union, who tended to be city dwellers, tended to see natural features of the landscape (like rivers) as the most unusual and outstanding thing about a battlefield. So, that is where most Northern battle names come from. The soldiers of the Confederacy, who tended to be country boys, tended to see nearby towns and cities as the most unusual and outstanding thing about a battlefield. So, that is where most Southern battle names come from.

Second, most of the battles that had/have two names were fought in the first two years in the war. In part, this was due to chance; for many later battles, like Gettysburg, there was really only one possibility for the name. And in part, it is because Southern newspapers began to collapse for want of money or resources. As a result, Southern battle names circulated far less widely in 1864 and 1865.

Third, after the war, one name often became predominant over another because one side wrote about a battle much more than the other did. For example, there wasn't much good for the South in the battle fought on September 17, 1862, whereas it was one of the North's greatest days. So, Northerners wrote a lot about the Battle of Antietam (Creek), while Southerners wrote much less about the Battle of Sharpsburg (Maryland), As a result, Antietam became the dominant name.

Fourth, the two battles of Bull Run/Manassas were important to both sides, and so both sides wrote a lot about them during and after the war, with the result that both names lingered. It is definitely the case that with this engagement in particular, and with all battles in general, the Lost Cause writers used the Southern name, wherever possible.

---

D.M. in Seattle, WA, asks: I was recently chatting with a friend and it brought up a question: What do you think would have been different if Franklin D. Roosevelt had adhered to the two term custom and declined to run for a third term? Who would have been president? How would the next 40 years or so have changed?

(V) & (Z) answer: This is nearly impossible to answer with any confidence. Should FDR have stood down, the leading candidates to succeed him as the Democratic nominee were VP John Nance Garner and Democratic activist and organizer James Farley. The problem is that the liberals hated Garner and the conservatives hated Farley. It seems probable that neither of them would have gotten the nod, and that a dark horse would have emerged. But what dark horse? There are literally dozens of possibilities.

Meanwhile, even once the Democrats had a candidate, it is possible that the most FDR-like candidate in the race would have been... Republican nominee Wendell Willkie, who supported most New Deal programs, and who was pretty interventionist when it came to World War II (though he was careful not to go TOO far in that direction during the election). It's entirely possible that if FDR was not running, Willkie would have won, particularly if the Democrats were divided.

It is even harder to know how the non-FDR president would have dealt with the challenges of World War II. Yes, having the economic and military might of the United States at your disposal is a good start. But would a different president have done as good a job prepping prior to Pearl Harbor? Of leading the nation after Pearl Harbor? Of working with Winston Churchill and other allies? Of finding and appointing people to key military posts? Of keeping the war funded? Who knows?

Gallimaufry

D.B. in Glen Burnie, MD, asks: Last week, you published comments from readers who provided answers to the question "Who is the greatest President we never had?" I was fascinated by the answers and because of my respect for YOUR opinions, I wonder: With which of the answers to the question did you most enthusiastically agree and disagree?

(V) & (Z) answer: We did not particularly disagree with any of them, but we both agreed that our answer would have been Robert F. Kennedy Sr. (Z) also quite liked the Eleanor Roosevelt answer.

Reader Question of the Week

Here is the question we put before readers last week:

B.B. in Pasadena, CA, asks: I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around the why evangelicals could ever support the orange messiah. What I'd like to know, and certainly this is the premiere site for such a question (well, for many, in my mind), is what other "leaders," "despots," "dictators" (and all other similar terms) have "taken in" (hoodwinked?) a religious sect in order to gain power?

Unfortunately, we're having some tech issues that will take a few hours to resolve, and we don't want to post that late, since we're already past the usual posting time. So, we're going to let this question stand for another week. If you haven't weighted in, and you want to do so, submit your answers to comments@electoral-vote.com with the subject line "False Prophet"!

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

To download a poster about the site to hang up in school, at work, etc., please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend or share some other way.

---The Votemaster and Zenger